Skip to main content

About your Search

20121222
20121230
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
the wall street journal, or the pentagon indicated they wanted to maintain 6000 to 15th thousand u.s. troops following 2014. that is the issue under discussion now. there's approximately around 340 0,000 afghan security forces in place, including the police. the pentagon recently indicated i don't believe there was a major unit capable of operating independently from nato support. there was some manipulation of the metrics they were using where the things appear to be making more progress than perhaps they were. that came out in a white paper. what will be the long term success or failure of the afghan national security forces is yet to be determined. they need about $4.1 billion a year to continue at that level, which is more than the entire government revenues in afghanistan. so it's gone to take a long-term commitment of foreign powers to maintain that size of armed forces. the afghans have proven that they are excellent fighters. the question is will they be excellent soldiers for the government of afghanistan? host: one other question, how stable do you think the karzai govern
's bring in barbara starr at the pentagon for more on this potential chuck hagel nomination. we don't know if he'll be nominated yet. barbara, what are the attacks against hagel? >> classic washington trial balloon. the nomination isn't out, nomination hasn't been made, but the pins are sticking in that trial balloon. first, senator hagel apologized for comments he made back around 1997, 1998 when there was a man who was openly gay about to become an ambassador, hagel opposed all of that, made some comments about gay people. now he says all these years later he regrets it, it is not what he believes. and by all accounts members of those who represent pro gay rights movements in washington have accepted senator hagel's apology on that. item number two, a lot of questions about whether hagel is tough enough on iran. did he cast some votes in the senate that did not support sanctions against iran? number three, israel. this may be the one that gets the most traction and already has, in fact. a lot of pro israeli groups are saying that senator hagel simply isn't supportive enough of israel. be
that the cia cooperated with and the pentagon. opens with recordings of people dying in the world trade center and saying it's based on actual accounts and saying it has that and then make the case we needed torture to keep us safe, that torture got us bin laden, you could see why that's department lie disturbing if as people who have seen the intelligence say it's not true. >> when we talk about senator mccain and all of us in the country know, of course, he is a war veteran and he was also a prisoner of war, and suffered through torture, during his time in the vietnam war, he said he felt sick watching the tortured men in the movie give up information about bin laden's courier. again, the movie claims this is based on firsthand accounts. so is the fact they took creative license the biggest point of contention? because they had facts but then now they have extrapolated dramatic essence from that to make the movie seem a little -- >> look. everybody expects them to take a dramatic license. the agents talk about dating and obviously there's dramatic license. the movie claims that the -- as a r
is a couple mission of the pentagon to it that was a andual i'll live to milan in administration. but it does not interest otters up continually there. this skepticism for the vietnam war and watergate which is mostly the washington post dory increased. the press became adversarial and maybe it will we have to have men ever serial left at have one cnn which is kind of trying to be the new york times and people are talking abut that people are not adversarial news. the stock above the neck down is it to section the newspaper. i notice the public editor who has probably talk to the look less people less times that i have have said, the day's paper is the granddaddy best friend of nuclear plant. the individual was get a little bit squeamish. some of you think i should say where are my sources. the book was a great deal of reading, i also was a very temperance and times of generous and giving me access. as one person or any view and expect to be. 1999-201. . all of the executive editress. by the time we were involved in this process a tentative before -- 1834 was a secondary investing. >> it does
of faith with our soldiers makes him not the right man to leave the pentagon. he went on in 2007 not only to oppose the surge and delay war funding and vote for a mandatory withdrawal from iraq at the same time. >> i want to quote directly from senator heigle at that time. there will be no defeat and no victory for the united states in iraq. and the time for more troops in iraq has passed. and it went on to say that -- i will just read this here, my comments 14 years ago were in -- actually this is in regard to a different issue. let's take that off and we will get to that in a moment. you were the platoon leader before it even happened. >> i was leading a 41-man with the 101st airborne in baghdad in 2006. those men fought bravely. they helped stabilize our sector of the city 1k3 defeat al-qaeda and other foreign terrorists and protect other civilians. they are proud of their accomplishments and no one told them at the time we would not achieve victory and we needed to withdraw from the country. today's fighting troops we have 68,000 troops in afghanistan. they deserve secretary of defens
, so do have the debt ceiling fight coming up. when you say that it faces and, you expect the pentagon to say we would just hold everything? certainly years, serving months ahead of time. they have to plan on how many people to have in their workforce -- in the force, recruiting. you cannot turn on a dime, like a huge oil tanker. >> john, we will focus on folks that we did not know who are here. we will come right back. don't go away. take five minutes. >> this is just -- >> we saw senators mccain and 11 decide they will come back in a couple of minutes. as we wait, back to something that took place earlier this morning outside the capital. -- the capitol. >> i want to thank you for being here to call on house republicans not to drop the ball on the middle-class. also for the house to show up for work, right? the president is down at the white house, senator harkin and his colleagues are here. they are out on a paid vacation right now. boehner walked out of the allegations with the present and then he walked out of the house and tell all members to go home while we are four days away f
to washington, it is not a philanthropic act on the pentagon's part. the united states federal government -- unless europe is dollar rise, unless they do not have dollars to spend purchasing the net exports of those who have surpluses, then they will stop having surplus. this is the surplus recycling mechanism. thus, we have the 20 years of the golden age. a period of immense stability very low inflation. universal growth. we had other problems. the lease from the macroeconomic point of view, it was a golden age. why is that? because the global surplus of recycling mechanism was sustained. why? because the united states stopped having a surplus by the end of the 1960's. how can you recycle surplus if you cannot have it. well, paul volcker -- been named may ring a bell. in 1971, paul volcker was an unknown working for another american. henry kissinger, who you may have heard of. before he became secretary of state. whener's paper, which are i read a few years ago, i thought it was the most remarkable document ever to emerge from washington in the last few years. looking at the emerging eco
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7